- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
U.P Residents Employees Coop. House Building Society And Others Petitioners/ v. Noida And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
The order concerns several Interlocutory Applications (IAs) filed in Civil Appeal No. 5502 of 1983 relating to land in NOIDA, Uttar Pradesh, that had been allotted to a Cooperative Housing Society. A surplus portion of 9.68 acres had reverted, or was poised to revert, to the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) following this Court’s earlier judgment in Hiralal Chawla v. State of U.P. The petitioner Society sought various directions to protect the interests of 242 of its members who had failed to make timely payments because of financial constraints. Additional issues included the status of the land-acquisition award and administrative mistakes in classifying certain members as defaulters. The present order disposes of IAs 3, 4 and 5 of 1990 and fixes a further hearing date for IAs 6 and 7.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Special Land Acquisition Officer had made the statutory award and, if so, why notice of the award had not been served on the interested parties (IA 3/1990).
- Whether the petitioner Society could retain and develop the surplus 9.68 acres to house 242 financially constrained members, or whether the land must revert to NOIDA in terms of Hiralal Chawla (IA 4/1990).
- How NOIDA should deal with delayed payments, clerical errors, and special requests of various categories of Society members (IA 5/1990).
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner Society
- Offered to pay the required consideration for the entire 9.68 acres on behalf of the 242 members who defaulted due to financial incapacity.
- Proposed to arrange low-interest loans from HUDCO and similar institutions and to spread repayments in easy instalments to suit members’ limited means.
NOIDA
- Invoked Hiralal Chawla v. State of U.P. to contend that the surplus 9.68 acres must revert to NOIDA, thereby preventing the Society from using that land.
- Conceded that, as a special case, NOIDA itself could formulate a housing scheme to accommodate the 242 members if they belonged to lower-income groups, arrange concessional loans, and structure instalments in line with their capacity to pay.
- In IA 5, agreed to: (a) accept delayed payments of certain members; (b) correct clerical errors wrongly showing timely payers as defaulters; (c) consider requests of five members to reduce plot sizes; and (d) verify and rectify records for seven other members if they were bona fide as of 1-5-1976.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Hiralal Chawla v. State of U.P. (1990) 2 SCC 149; (1990) 1 SCR 325 | Surplus land allotted to a cooperative society reverts to NOIDA if not properly utilised. | The Court recognised that, under this judgment, the 9.68 acres would ordinarily revert to NOIDA but permitted NOIDA, rather than the Society, to formulate a special housing scheme for the affected 242 members. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
IA 3/1990: The Court found that it could not adjudicate on the award-notice issue without input from the Special Land Acquisition Officer. It therefore directed the issuance of notice, requiring the officer to disclose whether an award had been made, the date thereof, and the reasons for any failure to serve statutory notices.
IA 4/1990: The Court’s primary concern was to secure housing for the 242 defaulting members while respecting the precedent in Hiralal Chawla. Noting the members’ financial incapacity and the steep rise in land prices, the Court considered it inequitable to deny them accommodation. Balancing equity with precedent, it allowed NOIDA—not the Society—to develop an appropriate housing scheme on so much of the 9.68 acres as would be necessary. The Society must supply a list of eligible members within four weeks, whereupon NOIDA must gauge actual demand, determine the land required, float a scheme within two months of receiving responses, and proceed with construction expeditiously. Any land left over after accommodating the willing members would remain with NOIDA for its own use. The Court emphasised that the concession was made in the unique facts of this case and was not to be treated as a general precedent.
IA 5/1990: Relying on concessions by NOIDA’s counsel, the Court disposed of various member-specific grievances. It directed NOIDA to accept delayed payments in certain cases, correct erroneous defaulter listings, consider plot-size reductions for five members, and verify the bona fides of seven members whose status was in doubt, extending appropriate benefits where justified.
Holding and Implications
IA 3/1990 – NOTICE ISSUED. The Special Land Acquisition Officer must file a counter-affidavit within four weeks; matter listed on 2-5-1991.
IA 4/1990 – DISPOSED OF WITH DIRECTIONS. NOIDA is authorised to devise and implement a housing scheme for the 242 eligible members within the outlined timeframe.
IA 5/1990 – DISPOSED OF. NOIDA shall implement the concessions recorded by its counsel.
Future hearings: IAs 6 and 7 of 1990 are scheduled for 2-5-1991.
Implications: The decision offers immediate relief to financially weaker members of the Society without disturbing the principle that surplus land ordinarily reverts to NOIDA. The Court expressly confined its ruling to the special facts, signalling that no broad precedent was intended.
Order
IA No. 3 of 1990
1. The question which arises for consideration in this IA cannot be resolved unless the Special Land Acquisition Officer concerned, NOIDA is served with a notice to ascertain if he has made the award; if he has, why the notice has not been served regarding the making of the award to the petitioner Cooperative Society and others interested in the land in question. We, therefore, direct notice to be issued to the Special Land Acquisition Officer, NOIDA returnable within 4 weeks. Dasti service to be effected. In addition to the said notice, counsel for the petitioner will be at liberty to serve dasti notice on the Standing Counsel for the State of U.P Notice will specifically state that the Special Land Acquisition Officer will disclose whether or not he has made the award and if he has, on what date. He will also disclose why notices have not been issued as required by law if the award has in fact been made. If no award is yet made, he will clarify why it has not been made. This will be disclosed by way of a counter to be filed on the returnable date. Let the matter come up on 2-5-1991.
IA No. 4 of 1990
2. This IA relates to accommodating those 242 members of the Society in the surplus 9.68 acres of land who could not make the payment on the due date on account of financial incapacity. The submission made on behalf of the Society is that the Society would pay the amount in respect of that surplus land also for and on behalf of the remaining 242 members and raise construction on the said 9.68 acres of land for them. Keeping in mind their financial capacity, his submission is that the Society would arrange for loans from HUDCO and other financial institutions at low interest rates and spread out the payment by easy instalments, keeping in mind their capacity to pay the instalments. In this manner the Society desires to accommodate the remaining 242 members who could not make the payment on the due date merely because of their financial incapacity.
3. As against this suggestion made by the Society, counsel for NOIDA states that pursuant to the judgment rendered by this Court in Hiralal Chawla v. State of U.P (1990) 2 SCC 149, (1990) 1 SCR 325 the surplus 9.68 acres would revert to NOIDA and therefore the Society cannot be permitted to utilise that land in the name of accommodating 242 members. Learned counsel for NOIDA, however, fairly states that if the said 242 members belong to the lower income groups, NOIDA would be willing as a special case to prepare a housing scheme for them and accommodate them in the surplus 9.68 acres of land or such lesser area as may be required having regard to the total out of such members desiring to have residential accommodation there. He also stated that NOIDA itself would be able to arrange loans for such persons at low rate of interest and would ensure that the payment of instalments is arranged keeping in mind their financial capacity to pay. This, says counsel for NOIDA would be in keeping with the decision of this Court in Hiralal Chawla case (1990) 2 SCC 149, (1990) 1 SCR 325.
4. The anxiety of all concerned is therefore to ensure residential accommodation to the left-out 242 members of the petitioner Society who could not make the payments on the due date on account of their financial incapacity. If this anxiety is met by NOIDA, we do not see any reason why NOIDA itself should not be permitted to float a scheme to accommodate those members or such of them as would desire to be accommodated on such part of the remaining land admeasuring 9.68 acres which would revert to NOIDA in terms of this Court's aforesaid judgment. The names of such members who were members on the cut-off date i.e 1-5-1976 may be furnished by the petitioner Society within four weeks from today. After the names are so furnished it will be for NOIDA to ascertain how many out of them desire to be accommodated under the housing scheme floated by it. After ascertaining the same, NOIDA will determine the extent of land which would be required for the scheme to accommodate those who desire to be accommodated. If on that basis the entire area of 9.68 acres of land is not required to be utilised, the surplus land will remain with NOIDA to be utilised in such manner as it deems proper. NOIDA will after ascertaining from the 242 members their wishes in regard to being accommodated float a scheme within two months from the date when it has received the replies from the 242 members and thereafter proceed to raise the construction as early as possible. We may make it clear that it was in the special circumstances of this case and having regard to the manifold increase in the price of land that the 242 members were unable to meet their increased financial obligations. Having regard to their financial limitations we felt inclined to think that it was unfair to deprive such members of an opportunity to secure their own residential accommodation because of the intervening circumstances, particularly the manifold rise in the land price. It was for this reason that we impressed upon the learned counsel for NOIDA to take a liberal view. Despite his initial hesitation and reluctance he was good enough to consult his officers and to treat this as a special case having regard to the peculiar developments. His initial hesitation or reluctance was only because he was afraid that this may be cited as a precedent in future. His apprehension was dispelled when he saw the justness of the matter in the special and peculiar circumstances mentioned earlier. With the above directions IA No. 4 of 1990 is disposed of.
IA No. 5 of 1990
5. In para 25 of IA No. 5 of 1990 in CA No. 5502 of 1983, four classes of cases have been set out. In regard to (a) counsel for NOIDA states that their amounts will be accepted notwithstanding the delay having regard to the special circumstances in which the delay was occasioned. Similarly, in regard to (d) counsel states that if the amounts were deposited on the due dates and yet the 10 members have been wrongly shown as “defaulters”, the error will be corrected. He further states that even if they have not paid the amounts before the due dates but fall in the category of class (a), their cases will be dealt with along with the members falling in class (a) and the same benefit will be extended to them. In regard to 5 members who desire to reduce their plot sizes referred to in (b), counsel states that their cases will be considered for reduced plots as a special case, having regard to the smallness of the number but similar requests from others may not be entertained. In regard to 7 members referred to in (c) he states that their cases will be verified and if they relate to members who were bona fide members on 1-5-1976, their cases will also be sorted out and the errors, if any, will be overlooked. IA No. 5 of 1990 is disposed of accordingly.
IAs Nos. 6 and 7 of 1990
6. List these matters on 2-5-1991.
Court Masters
Alert